[Lnc-business] Fwd: Motion to Suspend

Fri Sep 16 22:28:23 EDT 2016

Hmmm.  He ultimately asked me if I had a contact in Austin, so he could get
more involved...

On Sep 16, 2016 9:06 PM, "Patrick McKnight" <
patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:

> Whitney,
>
> My understanding is Mr. Smith is from NY which is in my region.
>
> Thanks,
> Patrick McKnight
> Region 8 Rep
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Patrick, yes it would require scheduling a special meeting.  And I think
>> all of us know this represents a significant minority of our Party.  Enough
>> that deserve a hearing.  I don't think it requires that anyone support it.
>> Arvin brought the motion in Orlando knowing no one supported it.  That is
>> not the point IMHO. The members deserve a decision.  And that decision will
>> (I judge) to be a resounding denial.  But this is a serious matter that
>>  they bring, and they deserve a decision so that they can appeal if they
>> choose to.
>>
>> I don't support it.  I have said here and many times on social media why
>> and that I don't.  But I also agree that this is a very weighty issue that
>> deserves a hearing and the right to appeal.
>>
>> This is cutting off members' right to appeal through process and not
>> through merits, and I don't think that is just.
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> P.S.  This is the response I received from Mr. Smith when I inquired
>>> about his location/affiliate...
>>>
>>> "Sadly I haven't taken the initiative to be active in the party. I just
>>> heard about the motion and wanted someone to hear my position."
>>>
>>> So, his position has been heard, and I have let him know how he can get
>>> involved with his local/state affiliate in order to take a more active role
>>> in the process of selecting our nominees.
>>>
>>> Whitney Bilyeu
>>> Region 7 Rep
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This request is widespread, and I believe it should be heard to put it
>>>> to rest. Further it should be heard for another reason.  The fact is that
>>>> our members have the right to appeal LNC decisions, and should have a
>>>> decision in order to decide how to exercise their rights.  They deserve
>>>> it.  And I say this as someone who opposes this motion.  I however believe
>>>> this sentiment represents a significant minority of our members, and they
>>>> deserve to be heard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org
>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Patrick McKnight <
>>>> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you all for your consideration. I will withdraw my motion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree we should not entertain every suggestion brought to us by
>>>>> every member. However I've had this brought to me by many different members
>>>>> of my region on many different occasions. There is a significant minority
>>>>> of our party that feels frustrated, betrayed and alienated. They deserve to
>>>>> have a voice in our proceedings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Joshua Katz <
>>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll note that I specifically said that if someone else's exercise
>>>>>> of said judgment leads them to a conclusion along the lines of "I'll submit
>>>>>> everything that comes to me, whether I like it or not" then I have no
>>>>>> objection to that, I simply do not arrive at the same conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd search in vain for a sentence in my post along the lines of
>>>>>> "member are a nuisance."  Of course they aren't.  I don't even mind getting
>>>>>> a lot of emails - I see it as part of the job.  I gave my reasons for my
>>>>>> beliefs, and they had nothing to do with seeing members as a nuisance or
>>>>>> with having a cluttered inbox.  (If I worried about that, I can tell you
>>>>>> one committee I wouldn't be serving on!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also did not say that because the delegates pass bylaws, we
>>>>>> shouldn't hear them.  What I said was that the delegates expect us to
>>>>>> answer to them, not to a smaller number of more vocal members.  We are
>>>>>> supposed to represent those who elected us (or, in some cases, those who
>>>>>> might have elected us), not just those who email us.  Additionally, we're
>>>>>> charged with duties beyond representation, in my view - and I held that
>>>>>> view when I was an alternate, as well.  First and foremost, we are charged
>>>>>> with the duty of being a board member, looking after the interests of this
>>>>>> party, and governing it.  At the same time, we need checks - that's why I
>>>>>> pushed for, at the suggestion of Dr. Phillies, and got, a procedure that
>>>>>> made it easier to remove the Representative and Alternate when our region
>>>>>> was forming.  My position was then that I would act in what I thought the
>>>>>> best interests of this party, and if people disagreed enough, they could
>>>>>> remove me, so I thought it was important that removal be easy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I get favourable emails.  And I expressed my disagreement with this
>>>>>>> line of thought in my response to Alicia.  Part of the Bylaws is having
>>>>>>> *Regional Representatives* which are to be the voice of the people in that
>>>>>>> region.  I have no issue with certain minimum bars set.  I, in fact, did
>>>>>>> so.  I had a few members grumble to me that they wished me to bring such a
>>>>>>> motion.  I told them come to me in a group of ten willing to put their
>>>>>>> names on a request, and then I will run that request by the State Chairs of
>>>>>>> my region to see if they agreed it should be heard since ultimately I serve
>>>>>>> at the pleasure of the Region 1 State Chairs.  No one has met this
>>>>>>> standard.  For less earth-shattering measures, I will bring a motion by
>>>>>>> just one member.  If there were ever a flood, I would set some stricter
>>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Region 1 is turning around in perception and it is my goal to have
>>>>>>> it fully turned around in perception by the end of my term.  And this
>>>>>>> particular attitude of mine is one reason why.  Members are not a
>>>>>>> nuisance.  And the delegation in passing Bylaws at convention I do not
>>>>>>> think is a reason not to hear them... we are divided into regions for a
>>>>>>> reason.  I said this at the last meeting, and I will say it until the last
>>>>>>> second of my term.  I take the *regional* part of *regional representative*
>>>>>>> very seriously and I urge every single other regional representative to
>>>>>>> consider if my approach to that is working.  I submit it is.  I invite
>>>>>>> anyone to be a member of my mailing list and LNC Region 1 FB discussion
>>>>>>> list.  Ask the State Chairs in my Region.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If reading an email request is too time-consuming and distracting to
>>>>>>> other members, I do not know what to say, but I will keep my promise to my
>>>>>>> region.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>>>> Harlos at LP.org
>>>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Joshua Katz <
>>>>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have my frustrations with the campaign, as you well know.  I
>>>>>>>> continue to be frustrated by the desire within the party - it's not
>>>>>>>> widespread, but it's there - to yank failure from the jaws of success.  The
>>>>>>>> contrast between the New Hampshire Union Leader supporting our candidate
>>>>>>>> and a group within our affiliate coming up with this is stunning to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Say what you want about him - when Wayne Allyn Root decided he
>>>>>>>> could not support our ticket, for, in my opinion, poor reasons - he
>>>>>>>> resigned, not just from the LNC, but from his party membership.  Others
>>>>>>>> need not follow his lead, of course, and I don't want them to, but perhaps
>>>>>>>> those who now oppose our ticket for their own reasons can gain some
>>>>>>>> understanding and appreciation for the position in which he found himself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I have this crazy notion - although it's shared more,
>>>>>>>> it seems, in this party than in at least one other major party - that it is
>>>>>>>> reasonable to put up people for jobs who are at least marginally qualified
>>>>>>>> to actually do the job.  This year, we managed to nominate not only our
>>>>>>>> most credible and experienced ticket in history, but the most credible and
>>>>>>>> experienced ticket in the race, and one of only two tickets that is even
>>>>>>>> marginally qualified.  I am getting extremely tired of the desire I keep
>>>>>>>> seeing to turn around and bite the ankles of this ticket because they have
>>>>>>>> the audacity to think for themselves, and to think carefully, about issues,
>>>>>>>> to recognize the difficulty in applying aspirational ideas to actual policy
>>>>>>>> and then to engage in the work of figuring out meaningful policy, and their
>>>>>>>> openness to thinking about suggestions, often expressed as "I'm open to
>>>>>>>> that."  Do I have my own frustrations?  Absolutely - but not because they
>>>>>>>> run for office and try to win.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That aside, though, I disagree that this is not a sufficient
>>>>>>>> response.  Technically, yes, there are ways to address this.  We had
>>>>>>>> trouble getting 6 members to agree that we should discuss our budget before
>>>>>>>> amending it.  The probability that there would be 6 requests for a meeting
>>>>>>>> to discuss this is nearly 0.  More to the point, though, I disagree that
>>>>>>>> there is some responsibility for members of this board to make any motion
>>>>>>>> suggested to them.  (Note:  While in the process of editing this, the
>>>>>>>> Secretary largely stole my thunder, but I have a slightly different take so
>>>>>>>> I decided to send this anyway).  We are not automatons for forwarding any
>>>>>>>> idea handed to us; members of this board are chosen for our judgment, and a
>>>>>>>> large part of this is making judgments about what motions to make.
>>>>>>>> Thinking in parliamentary terms, the reason seconds are needed in most
>>>>>>>> assemblies is to stop the body from having to spend time on things without
>>>>>>>> two people wanting it brought forward.  Is it unreasonable to think that
>>>>>>>> this board need only consider items if one member thinks them worth
>>>>>>>> bringing forward?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me be clear - if some members of this board want to do that,
>>>>>>>> that's their right.  That's part of their own exercise of judgment.
>>>>>>>> However, it is far from obligatory.  I also don't think it's beneficial.
>>>>>>>> The largest and, in theory at least, most representative body of this party
>>>>>>>> is the delegates in convention.  The delegates are the highest governing
>>>>>>>> body of this party.  They adopted bylaws asking us to be a board and
>>>>>>>> exercise governance, not hand that task off to anyone who calls one of us
>>>>>>>> up or passes a motion at an affiliate of an affiliate.  More to the point,
>>>>>>>> they elected, in large part, this board, and the rest was populated in
>>>>>>>> accordance with their instructions in the bylaws.  If we believe that we
>>>>>>>> must bring forth every motion presented to us, what we're actually doing is
>>>>>>>> empowering the vocal few in place of the quiet many.  We are allowing those
>>>>>>>> who are the loudest to speak over the delegates, who exercised their
>>>>>>>> control in the governance of the party by selecting an LNC (with the
>>>>>>>> exception of those seats filled by the LNC and those regional rep positions
>>>>>>>> not elected at caucuses at convention).  I think most of our members are
>>>>>>>> actually pleased with our candidates saturating the media, being
>>>>>>>> disappointed with polling in the double digits, and being lauded as the
>>>>>>>> most credible and viable third party ticket since, well, when exactly?  In
>>>>>>>> late August, as a reminder, Ross Perot polled at 8%.  John Anderson polled
>>>>>>>> in the neighborhood of 5-6%.  I guess since George Wallace?  However, we do
>>>>>>>> not get emails from members saying "things are going alright."  We don't
>>>>>>>> get emails from members who are not upset about the ticket.  The comments
>>>>>>>> we receive are unrepresentative.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another thing worth clarifying:  I absolutely love getting
>>>>>>>> contacted by members.  I get emails from members on a regular basis, I
>>>>>>>> engage with them, and I often, in fact, act on suggestions from members -
>>>>>>>> when I find doing so worthwhile.  I simply don't feel obligated to pass on
>>>>>>>> everything that comes to me.  If I think it's a bad idea, I don't do it.
>>>>>>>> Often, though, I think suggestions are good ideas, and are things I would
>>>>>>>> not have thought of.  In fact, I've received messages during meetings and
>>>>>>>> acted on them within just a couple minutes.  That happened at the meeting
>>>>>>>> we just held in Las Vegas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, amidst all this, the micromanagement and the bickering
>>>>>>>> and the responsiveness, there seems to be less enthusiasm about performing
>>>>>>>> actual board functions and providing governance and oversight.  If the time
>>>>>>>> we spend considering motions that not even one member of this body thinks
>>>>>>>> are worth considering could be spent on something more productive, we might
>>>>>>>> be a long way towards a more financially responsible and effective party.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>>>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For my opinion, I don't think that is an adequate response to said
>>>>>>>>> members.  And FWIW I would oppose said motion for reasons I would give in
>>>>>>>>> actual debate. However members deserve to have their motions heard.  Our
>>>>>>>>> Policy Manual provides means to ask for a meeting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If members from my region got a request to me (I proactively
>>>>>>>>> anticipated this and put conditions in place for me to bring such a serious
>>>>>>>>> motion and communicated those requirements to some inquiring members), I
>>>>>>>>> would bring the motion and ask for a meeting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you ask for a meeting to hear this Patrick, I will join.
>>>>>>>>> Members deserve to have their serious motions heard and should not be
>>>>>>>>> stymied incurably.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>>>>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>>>>>> Harlos at LP.org
>>>>>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>>>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2016, Whitney Bilyeu <
>>>>>>>>> whitneycb76 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For the record, I recently received a similar request from a
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Smith, whose location is unknown to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I will share the group's responses with him...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 15, 2016 10:53 AM, "Brian McQuade" <chair at lpseacoast.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good morning everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was informed that my previous emails should go to the entirety
>>>>>>>>>>> of the LNC and therefore am forwarding that email chain which is below.
>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies, and thank you for your time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your quick response, it is appreciated. Article 13
>>>>>>>>>>> covers for this situation if you can get two co-sponsors. So I suppose the
>>>>>>>>>>> question now is, do two other representatives here have the courage to
>>>>>>>>>>> stand for principle and help you cosponsor the submitted question via email
>>>>>>>>>>> per this bylaw?  Or will you all sit idly by and root for our party like
>>>>>>>>>>> our favorite sports teams such as the Democrats and Republicans do?  I
>>>>>>>>>>> understand this isn't comfortable for anyone, but I propose we be the
>>>>>>>>>>> solution, not the problem with politics in this country.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you all for your time on this matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Brian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for reaching out to me. I certainly agree
>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
>>>>>>>>>>>> frustration about the messaging coming from the top of our
>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However the next LNC meeting isn't until after the Election so
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I
>>>>>>>>>>>> am not able to accommodate your request as per Article 14.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>>>>>>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 14, 2016 11:56 AM, "Brian McQuade" <chair at lpseacoast.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On September 13th at the regular business meeting of the LP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seacoast, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> motion was made and passed to contact you regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> presidential ballot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. The motion asked that you make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a motion to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the LNC to suspend the nomination of both Gary Johnson and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Weld as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they do not uphold the principles of the Libertarian Party as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> openly made statements in support of the use of force. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively avoid using the word libertarian and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated time and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time again an inability to even grasp what it means to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> libertarian. Per
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article 14, Section 5 of the LP bylaws, a candidate’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nomination may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> National Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a meeting. We understand that this motion has a low
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> success, but we’re asking you to show that there are some in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Libertarian Party who still hold principle above party. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle to stand with those who voice opposition to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles? Will you put forth an effort on behalf of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> libertarians or will you willingly step back, swallow your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pump the party line? Is this still the "Party of Principle?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Members of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your region are speaking out and the ball is in your court. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patiently await your response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair, Libertarian Party of the Seacoast New Hampshire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Brian McQuade <chair at lpseacoast.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: sam.goldstein at lp.org, patrick.mcknight at lp.org,
>>>>>>>>>>> joshua.katz at lp.org, daniel.hayes at lp.org, starchild at lp.org,
>>>>>>>>>>> william.redpath at lp.org
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 00:24:12 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Motion to Suspend
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your quick response, it is appreciated. Article 13
>>>>>>>>>>> covers for this situation if you can get two co-sponsors. So I suppose the
>>>>>>>>>>> question now is, do two other representatives here have the courage to
>>>>>>>>>>> stand for principle and help you cosponsor the submitted question via email
>>>>>>>>>>> per this bylaw?  Or will you all sit idly by and root for our party like
>>>>>>>>>>> our favorite sports teams such as the Democrats and Republicans do?  I
>>>>>>>>>>> understand this isn't comfortable for anyone, but I propose we be the
>>>>>>>>>>> solution, not the problem with politics in this country.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you all for your time on this matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Brian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for reaching out to me. I certainly agree
>>>>>>>>>>>> with your
>>>>>>>>>>>> frustration about the messaging coming from the top of our
>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However the next LNC meeting isn't until after the Election so
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I
>>>>>>>>>>>> am not able to accommodate your request as per Article 14.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>>>>>>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 14, 2016 11:56 AM, "Brian McQuade" <chair at lpseacoast.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On September 13th at the regular business meeting of the LP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seacoast, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> motion was made and passed to contact you regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> presidential ballot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. The motion asked that you make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a motion to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the LNC to suspend the nomination of both Gary Johnson and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Weld as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they do not uphold the principles of the Libertarian Party as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> openly made statements in support of the use of force. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively avoid using the word libertarian and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated time and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time again an inability to even grasp what it means to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> libertarian. Per
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article 14, Section 5 of the LP bylaws, a candidate’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nomination may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> National Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a meeting. We understand that this motion has a low
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> success, but we’re asking you to show that there are some in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Libertarian Party who still hold principle above party. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle to stand with those who voice opposition to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles? Will you put forth an effort on behalf of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> libertarians or will you willingly step back, swallow your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pump the party line? Is this still the "Party of Principle?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Members of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your region are speaking out and the ball is in your court. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patiently await your response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair, Libertarian Party of the Seacoast New Hampshire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>>>>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>>>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>>>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>>>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160916/99da395b/attachment-0002.html>